July 13, 2006
Clarifications
I can tell that this is going to be a discussion, so let me clarify about the focus of my discussion. I said in the last post:
Over the years I have been very concerned about Gary Ezzo’s Growing Kids God’s Way overpowering influence over many young couples, particularly couples who come from weak family backgrounds. I think that the way some parents “discipline” children borders on the abusive. And, I think that the Ezzo schedule imposed on infants is not only ridiculous, but ends up being spiritually abusive to the poor parents who buy into his obsessions.
Please not carefully where I’m going with this (all either said or obviously implied in the above statement):
1. I am concerned about Ezzo’s continued influence (though he has long been warned about by mainstream evangelicals).
2. I think he is particularly influential on people who have come from homes where discipline was not good or where a weak family structure existed.
3. I think that the way some (did you not the word “some”?) parents discipline their children borders on the abusive.
4. I think Ezzo’s schedule (not scheduling per se, but EZZO’s schedule) imposed on children is ridiculous. However, the main reason for bringing that up is for the last part of that sentence… PLEASE NOTE:
5. It ends up being spiritually abusive to the poor parents who buy into his obsessions.
That (the spiritual abuse of poor parents) is the crux of my complaint. As to scheduling, I think most common sense parents schedule one way or another. Even those of us who would be accused of the evil “demand-feeding” by Ezzo-ites generally work with schedules of sorts, or eventually work into them. Carolyn Mahaney begins a series on “Scheduling” with this most excellent post. It is so good I read it to our church family. Throughout her series on this topic she kept reminding her readers of this first post and told them, “It’s just a suggestion.” Carolyn Mahaney’s model is right. Ezzo’s is wrong. And I’m not necessarily talking about the actual schedule. I’m talking about the way it is delivered. Ezzo breeds pride and contempt for all other ignoramuses who are not “Babywise.” He also inflicts too much guilt and uncalled for anxiety on mothers who struggle to adopt his way. He has spied out their liberty.
All these things I will attempt to address over the next few weeks. I still think Ezzo’s schedule is ridiculous (most everybody is on my side on that one), but the crux of my concern is the devestating effect it has on the spirits of parents and eventually on their children. If people want to schedule, fine.
Just a clarification.
Posted by Bob Bixby at July 13, 2006 08:56 PM | eMail this entry! | 452 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Parenting
I appreciate your emphasis that Infants communicate through their cries, they do not speak English. I agree with your assessment on the damaging affect the Ezzo’s method has on both parent and child.
Years ago I went to a seminar that was strongly suggesting the Ezzo’s method of Baby scheduling. They boasted of moms having more time and freedom to do multi-tasking. This was my seventh child and the idea seemed appealing to have more time. In my last month of pregnancy I studied the schedule which I would implement after birth. After three weeks of carefully following their schedule, engorged and in tears, I came to my husband. Baby was unhappy and I was unhappy and my husband said to me, “Honey, do what you always have done, you have had happy well adjusted children. This schedule is robbing you of the joy and delight you have had with each child.”
Love was not the theme anymore of nurturing my offspring, guilt was. I was guilt driven to do what was contrary to natural affection.
The moms I have seen implement Ezzo’s have been hard-hearted to their child’s cries or needs. The concept that your child was deliberately demanding your time or manipulating you to get “their own way” produced a judgmental critical attitude in the parents.
For parents to practice this philosophy makes everyone else subject to the cries of their baby. Why must everyone else also suffer and endure the parent’s neglect of their off-spring.? I believe this is selfishness.
We now have 11 children and are hoping for #12. What characterizes my babies that others have witnessed is that my babies seldom cry. It is not that I cater to their every want, but they know I’m there and can even wait patiently with Mommy encouraging them with the assurance that their need will be met.
I just want to support Connie’s testimony. (I hope I don’t embarrass her). I am so glad that she is a part of our assembly and I delight in the rare quality that she and her husband model of frankly assessing their past ideas and convictions with humility and grace. This lends so much more credibility to what they actually do. Unlike many people they are not defensive of their previous ideas “just because they worked,” but they are thoughtfully analyzing their ideas in the light of what they increasingly learn about God. It has been so refreshing to me.
Their family is an example in so many ways. My wife and I have enjoyed watching this family and giving glory to God for the spirit of grace we sense. We pray that we will learn from their example.
Often kids that have “turned out” are held up as proof that the idea was ok. This is unfortunate. Donkeys will “turn out” using some of Ezzo’s ideas. All of my parents children turned out for the glory of God. However, that is not necessarily proof that what my parents did was right. They did many things right. But they were mistaken on some things as well. The way they parented the younger children was significantly different than they way they parented the older children. Nothing is wrong with that. They matured in Christ. They “let their progress be seen by all” (1 Timothy 4:15) which is a mark of true Christian leadership. Parents who humbly acknowledge that they have “made progress” (thereby admitting that progress was necessary and that since progress was made, they didn’t always have it right in the first place) increase, not diminish, their effectiveness as leaders in their children’s lives.
Connie’s 11 children (from 25 years down to 2)are beautiful testimonies of sincere and loving parents. They will benefit from their parents’ humility as much, if not more, than any of the methods the parents adopted or discarded.
A system must not only be judged by how the kids behave… but by whether peace reigns in the hearts of the parents and the character of Christ is most evidently flesh out. I had enough experience in close obersvation of Ezzo parents to convince me that I did not want to go that route long before Patience came into our lives. Many of the mothers I had observed under Ezzo’s doctrine were nervous, defensive, suspicious, judgmental, paranoid, and emotionally unstable. It was the parents, not the children, that proved the weakness of the Ezzo thought. Not all, of course. But way too many to make me have confidence in that way of thought.
Over time, I began to realize that there are subtle errors, theological and biblical, that have corroded the thinking of many sincere believers and my dislike for the system morphed into a conviction that it is wrong. My opinion turned from one of personal distaste to a compassionate yearning to help young parents be happy and free, even while fulfilling their biblical duties.
Again, I think there is a biblical reason why this happens (unpeaceful parents). Again, I think this reiterates the main crux of my issue with the Ezzo thought: it is spiritually abusive to too many mothers. I hope to dive into this.
Posted by: bob bixby at July 14, 2006 05:08 PM
